The spinning jockey wheel thing is done that way as having it permanently spinning like around the edge that would trash the wheel very fast as its just two plastic surfaces running over each other. This is designed to work for as long as it takes for you to notice the stick in there.
So its not even a proper sprag clutch? All that so they can stick some holes in? What if the stick is between the chain and teeth?
No the hanger was consumable to save the frame not the derailuer.
No need for it when the drivechain costs more than a new frame?
nickc
The debate’s an interesting one.
A) This sort of high end gear has no real impact on most average MTBers.
B) It’ll be fitted to the very tippy toppy range of boutique frames that none of us buy anyway,
C) and 99% of folks will never ride a bike with it fitted.
C doesn't mean A though
B) is interesting as that of course depends on that old "who/what are boutique" frames chestnut.
Typically any over ££££ bike but then most manufacturers sell the same bike at different spec levels and if you want decent suspension/wheels etc. you are forced to buy the more premium options ?
SRAM as usual will issue specs to frame builders that allow them to do sloppy production and manufacturing tolerances and then blame the frame manufacturers when the chainstays snap, the dropouts get worn by the teeth on the washer or the shifting is sloppy (as with GXP) so either the frame manufacturers are going to have to do Eagle specific chainstays/frames or all the frames are going to be affected. (Or 2x frames with a high end mechanical for people don't like batteries on bikes?)
A bit like now where you can't buy DECENT frames (not top end just decent) with QR/straight steerer etc. its just creating a bigger BSO/MTB gulf.. whereas Thru axles and tapered steerers are more obviously functional I don't actually see what "function" this performs over a £250 groupset?
I don’t actually see what “function” this performs over a £250 groupset?
The argument's redundant. For some folks it'll be worth it for just the tech or newness alone, for some it won't. The range of groupsets that's currently on offer for sale isn't going to disappear overnight by SRAM developing this.
The Eeyore's on this site will always bemoan any development in mountain biking that they can't retro-fit to their 20 year frame. Standards-schmandards; it's always been a meaningless point to me
The Eeyore’s on this site will always bemoan any development in mountain biking that they can’t retro-fit to their 20 year frame. Standards-schmandards; it’s always been a meaningless point to me
I think there's a middle ground between "standards schmandards" and standards getting in the way of progress.
The derailleur hanger has been in the same place since the 10-speeds in the 60's? Making it stiffer is probably a good thing, although that it's SRAM who's mechs have more play than the average professional sports team after a few muddy miles bringing it up as an improvement is quite ironic.
And if this really was the end goal of a coherent set of upgraded standards (XD, UDH), why not introduce it at least at the top level on day 1 and at least make them intercompatible? This is the 2nd all new system launched since GX 11-speed only 7 year ago!
Does this sort of thing mean better kit all-round at some point - yes
Is it an £1800 groupset designed to cynically lock users (including OEM's) into SRAM - also yes (unless Shimano make a radical departure and start making XD cassettes or a longer microspline 2.0, and adopt UDH).
Will they in 3 years time squish it back together again and make it 13 speed as the new mechs meant they didn't actually need to widen the spacing, in spite of the fact they could just do that now? - abso-bloody-lootley.
No need for it when the drivechain costs more than a new frame?
And remember, on a FS (because why would *anyone* have a HT with this on 😉 ), it is "only" the swingarm to replace.
thisisnotaspoon
Is it an £1800 groupset designed to cynically lock users (including OEM’s) into SRAM
Nothing (other than licensing the UDH) stopping you from fitting the UDH and a Shimano group.
Is it an £1800 groupset designed to cynically lock users (including OEM’s) into SRAM – also yes
Only if SRAM wanted to commit commercial suicide though. I'd be willing to bet money (and it's probably true of Shimano as well) that these sorts of groupsets are less profitable per unit than the X5 10 speed stuff you can still buy, or the Acera or Tourney stuff that Shimano churns out by the millions each year. It's not going to change it's entire range of mechanical mechs to this new design, and even if it does, then old style stuff will still be available for the lifetime of most bikes using it - and this has always been true
Does SRAM want it's flagship groupset on the top priced models of say: Santa Cruz or Yeti bikes? Yes of course it does, (so does Shimano) If they've designed a system that's good enough the buyers of those bikes will also want it. But there's obviously a commercial risk to them if bike manufactures choose not to build bikes around it, or - as has happened in the past if you share standards, it's used against you in a never ending war of incremental gains for no real purpose other than bragging rights.
But SRAM and Shimano also wants the 99% of other mountain bikers to keep buying it's existing ranges, because that's what pays the bills, not S-Works.
I don’t actually see what “function” this performs over a £250 groupset?
If it wasn't for these £2000 halo groupsets, pushing technology onwards (and the people buying them), that £250 groupset you're using would still be a 3x9 speed atrocity.
FYI, for Wiggle platinum customers, X01 is £1500. https://www.wiggle.co.uk/sram-x0-eagle-t-type-transmission-axs-groupset
Just a note for those happy Shimano is keeping it simple and mechanical and having lots of interchangability...
Hidden deep within a pinkbike podcast, the guy from shimano indicated he has spent a long time riding (as in, probably nearing production) an electronic groupset which includes the option of fully automatic shifting.
You heard it here second.
Also came here to say I'd rather replace a bent hanger, even for £30, than a £700 rear mech.
SRAM are saying that you can probably rely on the mech to shrug off most things, and even if you do manage to bust parts on it, its those parts which are sacrificial rather than the mech hanger, and can be replaced. I've gotta say, I've bent precisely two hangers and never destroyed a mech in what? 25-30 years of mountain biking, I think folks like to shout about it, but I don't think I'm a particularly careful, or lucky rider not to have had this happen more frequently. Not saying it doesn't happen, but there's more scars on my XO1 than I've ever seen on may mech I've owned before and it's just keeps on keeping on.
The risk is on them really, if it turns out not to be true, (that the system is pretty robust) than it'll fall back onto bike manufacturers to help customers out warranty-wise, and that will soon make it's way back to SRAM if that bill starts creeping higher and higher.
ta11pau1
If it wasn’t for these £2000 halo groupsets, pushing technology onwards (and the people buying them), that £250 groupset you’re using would still be a 3×9 speed atrocity.
I don't really buy in to that... which isn't the same as saying non of the tech has filtered down but SRAM and Shimano (and Box and Microshift and Sunrace - Campag if you do road) are all competitors and for as example someone would have introduced a clutch by now, others would copy and the 1x9 11-50 would still be available.
I don’t really buy in to that… which isn’t the same as saying non of the tech has filtered down but SRAM and Shimano (and Box and Microshift and Sunrace – Campag if you do road) are all competitors and for as example someone would have introduced a clutch by now, others would copy and the 1×9 11-50 would still be available.
But the clutch mech (no matter who made it first) would initially be introduced on the most expensive mech, and if no-one buys the expensive stuff, it doesn't get developed and therefore doesn't trickle down to the lower groupsets.
Like it or not, the cutting edge groupsets need to exist to move tech onwards, for the benefit of everyone. SRAM are undoubtedly selling these for a loss, or pricing then to expect not many to be sold, with the thousands of hours of r&d etc that will have gone into developing this.
1x, clutch mechs, narrow wide etc - none of it will have been cheap to design. And it's never going to be introduced on NX/Deore level stuff first.
and the 1×9 11-50 would still be available.
You do know that Box make a cassette called the Prime 9 that is a 1x9 11-50T system. Right?
The spinny jockey wheel thing is a good idea, i can't tell you the number of times my progress has been hindered by a stick going into there.
Oh, hang on, ermm, yeah, its zero actually.
Think SRAM need to update their ESG policy and / or start a charity to help the people of STW afford a group set these days.
Torn between thinking cycling should be accessible to all and just needing to ignore this as a product segment / category that didn't exist when I got into the sport. XTR was always a luxury but attainable if you really wanted it. Just not quite sure who the audience is for X01 at £2k a group set.
nickc
I’ve gotta say, I’ve bent precisely two hangers and never destroyed a mech in what? 25-30 years of mountain biking, I think folks like to shout about it, but I don’t think I’m a particularly careful, or lucky rider not to have had this happen more frequently.
I'm maybe 2-3 hangars and a few bent cages that have bent back or been replaced for £25 .. a few jockey wheels etc. and unless you have SX/NX with the plastic bush (that can be replaced with the GX metal one) same here that I've rarely seen a destroyed parallelogram... maybe a bolt come loose etc. but that's mostly it in years.
As luck would have it I bent a mech last week .. cage got a bit bent swallowing some wood but a bit if a twist and bend and its working again.
The risk is on them really, if it turns out not to be true, (that the system is pretty robust) than it’ll fall back onto bike manufacturers to help customers out warranty-wise, and that will soon make it’s way back to SRAM if that bill starts creeping higher and higher.
Not really because SRAM have form on this... they published the frame tolerances for GXP BB's that turned out to wreck the BB so they just changed the spec of the frame tolerances and made it the bike companies problem rather than actually improve their engineering and tolerances.
Meanwhile the whole clevis thing makes the dropouts vulnerable and the toothed bit to bite into carbon or alloy is just going to incrementally wreck dropouts especially as the tolerances on the dropout thickness will need to be so tight (presumably they will need facing and at some point filing down and shims or the whole mech is going to wobble?)
nickc
You do know that Box make a cassette called the Prime 9 that is a 1×9 11-50T system. Right?
Exactly... and Microshift do a fairly decent range as well.. not to mention basic Deore 10 and 11sp
One thing is certain, you can't have 11-50 on the new Eagle as it needs to be even teeth 😉
XTR was always a luxury but attainable if you really wanted it.
The equivalent to this SRAM set would be what XTR di2? That's still wired, and still 11 speed, oh, and retail is £510.00 for the mech, If I had the money, I know that I wouldn't be looking at Shimano right now.
Exactly…
Right, I don't understand what your driving at then, sorry.
Goodness, imagine a private company innovating and coming up with new products for them to sell, to keep their company going and making money. They should still be making triple chainsets and handing them out for free, anything else is obviously some sort of high level plot to extract money from the average Single Track reader. Don't like it or see the point of it, don't buy it !
ta11pau1
But the clutch mech (no matter who made it first) would initially be introduced on the most expensive mech, and if no-one buys the expensive stuff, it doesn’t get developed and therefore doesn’t trickle down to the lower groupsets.
Like it or not, the cutting edge groupsets need to exist to move tech onwards, for the benefit of everyone. SRAM are undoubtedly selling these for a loss, or pricing then to expect not many to be sold, with the thousands of hours of r&d etc that will have gone into developing this.
1x, clutch mechs, narrow wide etc – none of it will have been cheap to design. And it’s never going to be introduced on NX/Deore level stuff first.
I'm not buying it... I'm not saying that's not how it happened, I'm saying that doesn't have to be HOW it happens. Having developed the clutch (come-on its not that expensive to design its more the good idea) there was no reason other than making people buy the expensive stuff not to introduce it on Deore/NX. If people (me included) hadn't bought in to a 1x and clutch enough to find the money for the higher end mechs they'd have just released a Deore level one when their main competitor did.
TBH can't remember the "who did it 1st" but that's the point whoever did the other had to follow be that at mid entry level or high end level or all.
Nothing (other than licensing the UDH) stopping you from fitting the UDH and a Shimano group.
Except that without some jiggery pokery it seems like the microspline cassette would be in the wrong place.
If Shimano did adopt UDH my money would be on it being 13-speed. Another 12s freehub would be a difficult sell.
Although bear in mind Shimano already has a patent for a 14 speed drive chain with rollerless chains that latched onto the side of the next sprocket up as well as the one they sat on. So who knows.
The lower jockey wheel thing could have been solved with a far simpler solution of just making the thin plastic thing have no holes for sticks to go through... which has never happened to me in 35 years of constant riding anyway. Maybe I'm not 'serious' enough for this level of aspirational guff.
I predict many broken carbon swingarms as the impact forces make their merry way to the next weakest link.
nickc
Right, I don’t understand what your driving at then, sorry.
I think the same as you... the wide range 1x would still be here regardless of it being introduced into premium SRAM/Shimano first anyway... no need for XD and microspline to get 11-50 and I'm struggling over that advantage 10T gives...
Except that without some jiggery pokery it seems like the microspline cassette would be in the wrong place.
If Shimano did adopt UDH my money would be on it being 13-speed. Another 12s freehub would be a difficult sell
I'm using a microspline cassette with udh right now, seems to be working fine. Should it not be compatible?
endoverend
I predict many broken carbon swingarms as the impact forces make their merry way to the next weakest link.
Not just carbon .. (though the current market is probably aimed at people buy carbon frames) but the teeth on the washer that hold the thing still are designed to cut into alloy every time you do up and undo the rear wheel...
I’m not buying it… I’m not saying that’s not how it happened, I’m saying that doesn’t have to be HOW it happens.
Doesn't matter if you're not buying it, it's called trickle down technology and it's been happening for years in all sorts of areas. Cars, computers, phones, in fact lots of stuff you use probably has some tech that was originally developed in a NASA space program and has then go onto be used in every day appliances.
The reason why it's expensive is because it's expensive to make. They're not churning out xx wireless mechs at the same rate as they produce sx mechs - cutting edge tech is expensive to make at first. Why in the hell would they sell a mech that probably costs a few hundred to make (recouping r&d costs mostly) for £150/at a huge loss?
But nah, let's not further technologies, let's all be happy with a club and a spear and fire.
These threads with anything remotely new or 'different' or, god help us... expensive, always go the same way. I guarantee the release of the first dropper post would have had a similar theme! Or the first carbon framed MTB, or the first disc brake...
The equivalent to this SRAM set would be what XTR di2? That’s still wired, and still 11 speed, oh, and retail is £510.00 for the mech, If I had the money, I know that I wouldn’t be looking at Shimano right now.
Nice to see this is being ignored by everyone...
I'll point out that XTR Di2 launched in 2015, for £2500.
Two and a half thousand pounds. In 2015!!!
And people are moaning about a £2000 cutting edge groupset in 2023...
thisisnotaspoon
Except that without some jiggery pokery it seems like the microspline cassette would be in the wrong place.
If Shimano did adopt UDH my money would be on it being 13-speed. Another 12s freehub would be a difficult sell.
There are hundred of bike models with UDH today using microspline. You can't mix and match with these new SRAM parts, but manfacturers can offer those bikes with Shimano groupsets and UDH hangers, or with this new SRAM stuff (9and no hanger) - not locked into SRAM
letmetalktomark
Full MemberI thought the mech hanger on the frame was meant to be a consumable unit to help save the mech in the event of a crash. Does this approach of connecting the mech risk all of that?
So this is pretty complicated really. Partly, a sacrificial part has to be weaker than the part it's saving, which means inevitably you have a less durable bike. And that means that some of the time when the sacrificial part breaks, it's not actually saving the part at all because it's reached the threshold where the hanger breaks, but it's still below the point where the mech breaks. And that can be pretty wide! Like, my Hemlock's hangers were made of monkey metal and they definitely caused more damage than they saved, over time. MC made me some nice cnc ones that were far stronger and I never had another mech incident after that.
But then you have to add in what happens next. Does the mech go in the wheel? The sacrificial hanger can create more damage than would have happened otherwise in that way too. Does the hanger damage the frame?
That last one's really important- people think this design will damage their frame (more on that later), but forget that disposable hangers can do that too, if the part twists or- again- if it lets the mech go where it shouldn't.
Over time, quality bikes have mostly aquired stronger hangers. Breaking a mech hanger or bending a steel frame used to be commonplace, but when was the last time you had it happen, except on a bike that used an older hanger design? The hangers on all my bikes except for the shite synchros ones are pretty damn sturdy, and also very solidly attached to the bike. And yet, I've got a bunch of older busted mechs in the scrap box, and only a single one from the last few years.
So basically, that's a change that already happened, and we didn't really notice. And mostly because you don't notice when you crash and your mech doesn't fall off. We'd reached a point where the sacrificial value was massively reduced. I think it's totally possible in these days of expensive mechs that it was a net negative not positive. But either way, it wasn't massive.
So then you've got, will it break the frame instead of the hanger? And in the past, that was really a valid question. But the evolution of bolt-in axles changed that a lot. Now those chunky dropouts are usually also where the rear axle bolts in, meaning you have a very strong, triangulated structure,where you used to have a pretty much flat unsupported one, with a big lever attached (the hanger and mech).
The Sram UDH/T mech are similar in this bit to a bunch of existing systems, Trek ABP hangers are maybe the best example though, especially since Sram and Trek work closely together. And that's been around for at least a decade without issues. Basically the concept of making a stronger frame that can support strength instead of trying to protect a weaker frame with weakness has been tested to death.
So that means that damaging the frame with the mech is now really, really hard. Without a doubt, your odds of damaging a frame with a UDH/T mech are lower than your odds of damaging a frame with most traditional breakaways, it's not even going to be close.
So now the weakest point is definitely the mech. This is confusing people, they're saying "the mech isn't designed to be sacrificial, Sram say so". And it's true, but it's still the weakest point, it is a spindly long exposed movey thing whereas the frame is a big chunky reinforced triangulated thing. Breaking the latter using the former as your lever isn't going to work.
Breaking mechs sucks. Breaking really expensive mechs sucks more. But we get back into "when does it break". Losing the hanger, means losing "my hanger broke and my mech would have been fine except it went in the wheel and now the mech and the wheel are ****ed", at the same time as it loses "my hanger broke and nothing else did". That'll balance out a lot, as will "I crashed and nothing broke at all because everything is stronger than it used to be" That last one's going to be hard on SRAM, because like I say, you don't notice it when you crash and nothing happens.
So the maths of where the actual breakages are is uncertain. But then we add in the replacable parts.
And actually to me this is the shit bit. Everything else looks great to me, I won't be buying it because my 2 main bikes are 1) a decade old trek and 2) a supermarket fatbike. I'm not the customer, but it looks well thought out.
But, now you can buy bits for your T-mech X01. But not for your old GX Eagle 11 or 12. That's not progress, really, that's just shining a light on something that was bullshit and has been bullshit for years. You can buy limited spares for some mechs but even then, it's an incomplete range. Shimano are already in another league here, SRAM want to be congratulated for doing something they should already be doing. And they're probably going to keep it as an "advantage" for the new system, in that weird way that capitalism can make taking things away into a selling point.
But, on the plus side, it's a "designed for rebuilding" approach which is a step above "you can buy some of the parts", especially since damaged mechs often have multiple damaged bits. Replacing a cage then realising the parallelogram is bent is not a nice moment!
the cutting edge groupsets need to exist to move tech onwards, for the benefit of everyone. SRAM are undoubtedly selling these for a loss, or pricing then to expect not many to be sold, with the thousands of hours of r&d etc that will have gone into developing this.
but if they are selling the high end groups at a loss, how do the recoup the development costs through the sale of high end groupsets that enables the trickle down? unless, making the “best” halo parts helps you sell so many other groupsets that the costs are absorbed in the total profit.
all speculation on my part.
personally i like (and enjoy) the relatively simple nature of bikes, though as i type this i’m thinking, “this groupset is probably easier to set up and maintain than suspension components”.
They'd only possibly be selling them at a loss if the R&D costs were limited just to this product tier, but it will obvs be amortised over several subsequent lower tiers - which you lot are much more likely to end up buying.
but if they are selling the high end groups at a loss, how do the recoup the development costs through the sale of high end groupsets that enables the trickle down? unless, making the “best” halo parts helps you sell so many other groupsets that the costs are absorbed in the total profit.
all speculation on my part.
personally i like (and enjoy) the relatively simple nature of bikes, though as i type this i’m thinking, “this groupset is probably easier to set up and maintain than suspension components”.
drive trains are probably the best example of trickle down in the bike industry. ignoring the latest shimano cues for a second, most non-halo drivetrains from the last two decades have been pretty much a case of pulling up the previous years homework, changing the carbon to alu, the alu to plastic, reduce the amount of machining down and removing a bit of adjustability.
I too like a simple bike... but what is simple? The actual manufacturing is irrelevent to me (but cost and durability do matter)
For example, to stay on drivetrains, any modern 1x drivetrain is lightyears ahead in complexity of some 90's triple where the cassette was just a stack of plain cogs.
However, ease of set up, ease of use (one button for faster, one button for easier) and lack of required maintainence and adjustment means for me the modern option is "simple" to me as a user.
I've also got brakes that go years without a bleed, require no adjustment as pads wear, and I can change to new pads in minutes.
And purely for aesthetics for those who like a clean bike - I've got an internal routed VPP frame with a fidlock bottle mount. So so much easier to clean than my previous external 4 bar.
Peak Torque sums it up well
Its not very well thought out at all, a solution looking for a problem, whilst adding a whole load of new issues.
Seems he's misses a few of the key features to me 🤷♂️
They’d only possibly be selling them at a loss if the R&D costs were limited just to this product tier, but it will obvs be amortised over several subsequent lower tiers – which you lot are much more likely to end up buying.
which means the buyers of the lower end stuff are paying for the RnD of the innovations years before they get the benefits of the trickle down. subsidizing the halo groups, even!
I too like a simple bike… but what is simple?
exactly. i’m not a luddite, quite the opposite. i love new things and innovation and progress, but electronics on bikes leave me cold.
These threads with anything remotely new or ‘different’ or, god help us… expensive, always go the same way. I guarantee the release of the first dropper post would have had a similar theme! Or the first carbon framed MTB, or the first disc brake…
Exactly, so many ready to scoff at anything new or expensive because they know better and that some obscure or vintage product they suggest will apparently do exactly the same job.
SRAM are a business. Their business is selling bike components, they dont need to justify the price or design to anyone. If they think they can sell them then that's all they should be concerned about. I dont understand why so many seem to think they have some sort of duty to do anything else.
I’m not the target audience as I’m happy with no gears on my hardtail and the new heavy duty LinkGlide stuff on my ebike. But I think the concepts of the UDH and the new direct mount mech are great - the former stops us having a crazy amount of mech hangers, many of which end up being unused spares that outlast the frame they’re for. And the latter removes all the variability and looser tolerances of having a hanger between frame and mech.
I think it's a decent concept and that peak torque bloke up there in the video sounds like a grumpy old man (as he refers to himself). There is the chance that any side loads from walloping the mech on a rock get transferred down the seat stay/chain stay and result in a frame breakage which is why (along with the price) I'm not buying it for a few years,but once/if it proves itself and becomes cheaper,I'll be on board. I suspect it will prove itself.
that's nice.
I think I'll get SLX/XT and a few holidays.